FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Caleb Rawson - CCU

"My background is that I competed in parli for multiple years in college and now do some assistant coaching on the weekends while I get my PhD in Business. I’ve been told I am a very expressive judge so feel free to utilize that to your advantage. I hold to a very ideological view of debate, especially that access to debate (both as a competitor and as an audience member) should be open and non-discriminatory. This manifests itself in some of the following points.   -Courtesy. Both teams need to not only be polite with their words, but also with their nonverbal signals. If an opponent asks a question (and they should ask, and you should answer) be polite with your answer. Dramatic sighs or eye rolling will result in a significant drop in speaker points.   -Speed. Having debated I know that a fast speaking speed can be beneficial. However, your speed must be at an understandable pace for everyone in the room (including audience members). I will not flow anything I cannot understand and I will not call “clear” or tell you to slow down. If you talk fast you must pay attention to my nonverbals (i.e. do not read directly from a page at a fast pace and expect me to flow everything). -Probable Cause. Impacts, K’s, and abuse must be probable, not just possible. -Generic Politics Argument and Resolutional K’s. See above point. I don’t care if you “feel” the resolution is discriminatory or unfair, you must prove that it is. -Use rebuttals to actually refute your opponents and show why you win instead of using them like a constructive speech. That’s why debate has rebuttals in the first place…. I like to have fun as a judge and I like my competitors to have fun."

Charity Chiltz - Evangel

n/a

Cheryl Maiorca - OU

First and foremost, I view parliamentary debate as a speaking event. Parli is debate, but because it is extemporaneous and requires preparation within a limited window of time the ability of each participant to both reason and articulate an argument in a professional manner is a vital part of the activity. The goal of parli is not to speed through an information dump without being able to link evidence to argument. While I can generally understand when students speak quickly or “spread” – my flow is the ultimate guide to how the round has unfolded. If evidence is presented and does not make it onto the flow because of speed, if the other team calls a point of order I will go with what is on my flow. Parliamentary debate is designed for well-read college students to develop a case within a limited timeframe. Because of this, if I am presented with “canned” cases that have obviously been rehearsed and used before I will be more likely to decide that the team without a canned case has won the round. There is a time and a place for running a kritik of the resolution, arguing topicality, or arguing that a case is abusive but using theory should not be prioritized over well-reasoned argument. Affirmative teams: Debate the resolution. If “this house believes cats are better than dogs” I do not want to hear about the importance of free trade coffee. Define your terms but play fair and develop a case that builds upon the resolution itself. That said, I love when cases are topical but not necessarily straightforward. I encourage creative interpretations of the resolution but expect that the case will fit the resolution and not be something that was prepared weeks in advance that you try to cram into the current topic. I want you to create your argument during your prep time and explain why that argument wins the round. Negative teams: I want to see clash. Engage with the topic as defined by the affirmative team. If you believe that there is not ground or that the affirmative definitions are unfair, it is okay to state that belief but argue the case anyway. Provide me with a counterplan, give me the disads of the affirmative case, and/or provide clearly reasoned and linked rebuttal. Arguing fairness, vagueness, and topicality at length takes away from the educational value of parliamentary debate. Both teams:: I hate human extinction arguments. I find them trite and overused. Advocate your case and explain why your opponents’ case is wrong without telling me yet again that the world will end. Finally, I expect civility. I gave a student 8 speaker points once because when his opponent stated he would answer a question at the bottom of the flow he argued with that and spent 45 seconds of an 8-minute constructive wasting his opponent’s time. Asking questions in parli is an art form and I encourage them, but I do not see any reason why anyone is unable to wait for someone to get ideas spoken before breaking his or her train of thought. I want to see disagreement and opposing ideas but I do not want to see poor sportsmanship, rudeness, cruelty, dishonesty about evidence, or gross exaggerations about what your opponent has said.

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Gabriel Adkins - Arkansas Tech

n/a

Kendrea James - NSU

n/a

Kenny Hopkinson - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Kristopher Copeland - NSU

n/a

Mallory Marsh - Bethel College

n/a

Mark Kelton - Evangel

n/a

Melissa Benton - Webster

n/a

Savannah Whipple - Evangel

n/a

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Stephanie Gray - UCA

n/a

Tamara Adkins - Arkansas Tech

n/a

2016 State Line Swing 2 (Josh Lee)